Appeal from Lenawee, Rex B. Martin, J.
Allen, P. J., and Bronson and R. M. Maher, JJ.
1. Evidence -- Lie-Detector Tests -- Admissibility of Results.
Neither the fact that a lie-detector test has been taken nor the results of such a test are admissible in evidence.
2. -- Evidence -- Lie-Detector Tests -- Bolstering Testimony -- Admissibility of Results.
Attempts to bolster the current testimony of a prosecution witness by showing that the witness changed his or her story after being given a lie-detector test which showed a prior inconsistent statement to be untruthful are improper.
3. Evidence -- Lie-Detector Tests -- Intentional Reference -- Restoration of Credibility -- Bolstering Testimony -- -- Miscarriage of Justice -- Preserving Question.
An intentional reference to polygraph test results is inadmissible to restore a witness's credibility by showing that pending criminal charges against him were dropped as a result of the test and not in exchange for his testimony even where the results do not directly bolster the witness's testimony; the admission of such a reference constitutes a miscarriage of Justice and mandates reversal even where there was no objection to its admission at trial.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bronson
Gary Rodgers was convicted of assault with intent to commit murder, assault with intent to kidnap, and unarmed robbery. Defendant then pled guilty to a supplemental information charging him with second-offender status. Defendant appeals.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to commit murder, contrary to MCLA 750.83; MSA 28.278, assault with intent to kidnap, contrary to MCLA 750.87; MSA 28.282, and unarmed robbery, contrary to MCLA 750.350; MSA 28.798. He then pled guilty to a supplemental information filed pursuant to MCLA 769.10; MSA 28.1082, providing for a longer term of imprisonment for second offenders. On October 23, 1973, defendant was sentenced to prison terms of 15 to 50 years, 10 to 15 years, and 10 to 22-1/2 years, respectively.
During cross-examination of a key prosecution witness, Massenoir Norton, the defendant tried to show Norton's "interest" in the prosecution of the case as affecting his credibility. It was established that a pending misdemeanor charge against Norton had been dismissed by the prosecutor. In an obvious attempt to bolster Norton's credibility, the prosecutor on redirect examination elicited the following testimony:
"Q. Do you know why the charges against you ...